Portugal's right-wing Chega party has escalated its confrontation with the Constitutional Court, accusing judges of "political activism" after the tribunal unanimously struck down a nationality-stripping law for the second time in five months.
The standoff highlights fundamental tensions over judicial independence and the limits of parliamentary power that could shape Portugal's legal landscape for years.
Why This Matters
• The Constitutional Court ruled on May 8 that denationalizing convicted criminals violates equality and proportionality principles, blocking a law approved by two-thirds of parliament.
• Chega claims left-leaning judges are obstructing the legislative agenda despite the party's electoral gains, arguing the court has overstepped its authority.
• The dispute centers on whether naturalized citizens can be treated differently from native-born Portuguese under criminal law—a question with implications for thousands of residents.
International Legal Standards
The court's decision aligns with prevailing European jurisprudence on nationality law. The 1997 European Convention on Nationality, ratified by most Council of Europe members, permits denationalization only in narrow circumstances—fraudulent acquisition, false information, or voluntary foreign military service. The framework explicitly aims to prevent statelessness and arbitrary deprivation of nationality.
International standards and European jurisprudence strongly discourage nationality revocation as criminal punishment, citing human rights concerns and statelessness risks. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that "every person has the right to a nationality" and that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality."
For EU citizens, the stakes extend beyond national law. Loss of Portuguese nationality triggers loss of EU citizenship, severing rights to live, work, and move freely across the bloc's 27 member states. The Court of Justice of the European Union has characterized EU citizenship as the "fundamental status" of member state nationals, intensifying scrutiny of denationalization measures that could undermine this status.
The Decree That Sparked the Crisis
At the heart of the controversy sits a parliamentary decree designed to introduce loss of nationality as an accessory penalty in Portugal's Penal Code. The measure, which secured backing from the center-right Social Democratic Party (PSD), CDS-PP, Chega, and the Liberal Initiative, would have applied to individuals convicted of serious offenses—qualified homicide, slavery, human trafficking, rape, sexual abuse, state security crimes, terrorism-related offenses, and criminal association—and sentenced to five years or more in prison.
The penalty carried a crucial condition: it would apply only to naturalized citizens within 15 years of obtaining Portuguese nationality, and only if the individual held dual citizenship, ensuring no one would become stateless. The Socialist Party (PS) immediately referred the decree to the Constitutional Court for preventive review, triggering the first unanimous rejection in December 2025.
Undeterred, the legislature resubmitted a modified version. On May 8, 2026, the Tribunal Constitucional again ruled unanimously against the measure, reinforcing its initial reasoning that the law created an unconstitutional two-tier citizenship system.
Chega's Institutional Critique
During the party's parliamentary conference in Viseu, Deputy Cristina Rodrigues, vice-president of Chega's parliamentary group, delivered a sharp rebuke of the court's approach. "We're not saying the Constitutional Court must accept an unconstitutional law," she clarified, "but it must respect the separation of powers. We're witnessing political activism emanating from the Constitutional Court that is absolutely unacceptable."
Rodrigues emphasized the decree's parliamentary mandate, noting it secured approval with a reinforced two-thirds majority—a threshold typically reserved for constitutional amendments and fundamental reforms. "The Constitutional Court paid no attention to this," she said, framing the tribunal's decision as dismissive of democratic will expressed through supermajority consensus.
However, constitutional scholars argue the court's role involves precisely this kind of review. Constitutional law experts contend that supermajority parliamentary approval does not exempt legislation from constitutional scrutiny—indeed, the court's jurisdiction exists to determine whether any law, regardless of how it passes, aligns with constitutional principles. The court's reasoning emphasized that equality protections apply equally to all laws, and cannot be overridden by parliamentary majorities alone.
Rodrigues argued that Portugal's Constitution contains no explicit prohibition against nationality loss and pointed to existing distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens, particularly the requirement that presidential candidates hold original Portuguese nationality. "If the Constitution allows it there, why not in other circumstances?" she asked, suggesting the court was engaging in expansive constitutional interpretation beyond its mandate.
The court countered that constitutional provisions on citizenship should be interpreted in light of broader equality and proportionality guarantees, as well as Portugal's international legal commitments. This interpretive approach reflects mainstream constitutional doctrine across European democracies, where courts balance specific provisions against overarching constitutional principles.
The Composition Question
Central to Chega's grievance is the court's composition. Rodrigues noted that while the left lost its parliamentary majority, it retains dominance in the Constitutional Court among judges appointed during previous legislative cycles. The tribunal's 13 judges serve nine-year non-renewable terms, with 10 elected by parliament (requiring two-thirds approval) and three co-opted by those 10.
This observation reflects real structural questions about judicial appointments in any constitutional system: how democratic accountability for judicial composition should be balanced against judicial independence from short-term political pressures. Portugal's appointment process—requiring two-thirds parliamentary approval for the 10 appointed judges—is designed to ensure broad consensus rather than narrow majorities determining the court's direction.
What This Means for Residents
For naturalized Portuguese citizens, the ruling preserves existing nationality law: Portuguese citizenship can be voluntarily relinquished but cannot be stripped as criminal punishment, regardless of offense severity. The decision maintains legal equality between native-born and naturalized nationals under penal law, preventing differential treatment based on citizenship origin.
The standoff carries broader implications for institutional stability. Though a two-thirds parliamentary majority theoretically allows reconfirmation of a decree declared unconstitutional, the Portugal Government has shown reluctance to provoke an open institutional conflict with the judiciary. Such a confrontation would be unprecedented in modern Portuguese democracy and could trigger a constitutional crisis.
For foreign nationals considering naturalization, the ruling offers clarity: acquisition of Portuguese citizenship does not create a probationary status where the citizenship bond remains contingent on future conduct. Once granted, nationality enjoys the same constitutional protections afforded to birthright citizens.
Constitutional Amendment as a Path Forward
Constitutional scholar Jorge Bacelar Gouveia has suggested Portugal may need a constitutional amendment to permit nationality revocation in narrow criminal contexts, particularly for state security offenses and terrorism where the court acknowledged a "functional connection" between the crime and citizenship bond might exist. Even then, the court indicated any such measure would require case-by-case judicial assessment rather than automatic application to pass proportionality review.
An amendment route would require political consensus beyond a single legislative majority and would invite broader democratic debate about whether nationality should ever serve as criminal punishment—a question on which European democracies remain deeply divided.
The Political Stalemate
Chega's institutional critique forms part of a broader push for constitutional revision that would reshape judicial appointment processes and potentially constrain the Constitutional Court's review powers. The party argues the tribunal should "reflect more directly the current political balance in parliament," suggesting structural reforms to align judicial composition with electoral outcomes.
The current impasse illustrates fundamental tensions in constitutional democracies: how to balance majority rule against constitutional constraints, and where courts draw the line between interpretation and policy-making. With Chega pressing for constitutional changes and the tribunal standing firm on equality principles, the dispute seems likely to define Portugal's legal-political landscape well beyond this single decree.
For now, Portuguese nationality law remains unchanged. Whether that status quo survives a constitutional revision process remains Portugal's next institutional test.
